AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01472 
COUNSEL:  NO 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
   
 
   
 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
1.  Her official military records be corrected to show that she 
was not involuntarily discharged from the Air Force. 
 
2.  She be reinstated onto active duty in her last AFSC of 8R000 
(Enlisted Accessions Recruiter).   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
1.  She  was  unfairly  denied  an  Administrative  Discharge  Board 
(ADB)  during  her  involuntary  discharge.    Her  Area  Defense 
Counsel  (ADC)  told  her  she  did  not  qualify  for  an  ADB  because 
she had not served the minimum of six years of active duty which 
is  required  to  warrant  an  ABD.    However,  per  AFI  36-3208, 
Administrative  Separation  of  Airman, she was entitled to an ADB 
because she had over six years of total service.  She served 5 
years,  1  month,  and  10  days  of  active  duty,  and  5  years,  11 
months, and 20 days of inactive duty.   
 
By amendment the applicant contends: 
 
2.  Her  discharge  from  the  Air  Force  was  an  act  of  reprisal 
under  the  Whistleblowers  Protection  Act  in  retaliation  for 
making  a  protected  communication  while  at  Air  Force  Recruiting 
School  regarding  a  classmate  who  had  been  unfairly  advanced 
through a particular portion of the course curriculum.  Because 
of  the  protected  communications,  she  met  a  hostile  work 
environment  at  her  new  duty  station,  which  included  delays  in 
receiving advanced Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) and access 
to  software  required  to  perform  her  duties,  being  assigned  a 
government vehicle with a history of maintenance problems, being 
given  an  old  computer,  and  having  a  flight  mate  who  made 
persistent unwanted sexual advances toward her.  As a result of 
this  reprisal,  she  went  Absent  With  Out  Leave  (AWOL)  to  find 
resolution outside of the Air Force. 
 
3.  Her Article 15 was ineffective for the following reasons: 
 

a.  The charges reflected were erroneous.  While her Flight 
 
Chief requested the Article 15 be initiated for her being AWOL, 
the actual charges reflected the following: “Without authority, 
failed  to  go  at  the  time  prescribed  to  her  appointed  place  of 
duty,” and “Without authority was absent from her place of duty 
at which she was required to be.”  Additionally, the period of 
AWOL described is incorrect as she attempted to surrender on 21 
Dec 10, but was told that she must return to her home station to 
do so. 
 
 
b.  The  ultimate  sentence  was  crafted  in  such  a  way  as  to 
give her the false perception she would be granted probation and 
rehabilitation  until  11 Jul 11,  without  further  action,  instead 
she was demoted.   
 
c.  The  bases  of  the  action  included  two  Letters  of 
 
Reprimand  (LOR),  but  the  LORs  for  improper  use  of  a  government 
owned  vehicle  and  for  making  unauthorized  phone  calls  were  too 
harsh.    Each  LOR  states  she  was  “derelict  in  her  duties,”  but 
“derelict” is too harsh a word for unintentional misuse.  
 
4.  She was improperly denied her right to test for promotion to 
the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt) in 2010.  Her adjusted date 
of rank (DOR) to Senior Airman (SRA) was 26 Jul 09, making her 
eligible  to  test  for  SSgt  in  the  2010  cycle  after  she  had 
completed  six  months  time  in  grade  (TIG).    However,  her 
leadership told her she would be testing in 2011.   
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  entered  the  Regular  Air  Force  on  22  Mar  00  and 
served  until  21  Mar  04  when  she  was  released  from  active  duty 
and transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). 
 
On 25 Jan 10, the applicant reentered the Regular Air Force in 
the  grade  of  senior  airman  (E-4)  to  serve  as  an  Air  Force 
Recruiter.  
 
On 7 Feb 11, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was 
recommending  she  be  discharged  from  the  Air  Force  for  Minor 
Disciplinary  Infractions  with  a  service  characterization  of 
Under  Honorable  Conditions  (General).      The  reasons  for  this 
action were: 
 
 
1.  On  or  about  17  Dec  10,  the  applicant,  without 
authority, failed to go at the time prescribed to her appointed 
place  of  duty.    And,  on  or  about  20  Dec  10,  the  applicant, 
without authority, was absent from her appointed place of duty, 
and did remain so absent until on or about 28 Dec 10.  For this 
misconduct,  she  was  punished  under  Article  15  of  the  Uniform 
Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ).    As  punishment  the  applicant 

2 

 

received  a  reduction  to  the  grade  of  Airman,  with  reduction 
below Airman First Class suspended, unless sooner vacated.  
 
2.  On or about 9 Nov 10, the applicant was derelict in her 
 
duty  in  that  she  used  her  assigned  Government  Owned  Vehicle 
between the hours of 2200 and 0500 without the permission of the 
operator’s  supervisor.    For  this  dereliction  of  duty,  she 
received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR). 
 
 
3.  On  or  about  20  May  10  to  on  or  about  20  Dec  10,  the 
applicant was derelict in her duty in that she used her assigned 
Government office telephone to make unauthorized personal phone 
calls  outside  here  recruiting  zone.    For  this  dereliction  of 
duty, she received an LOR. 
 
The  applicant’s  commander  recommended  her  for  discharge,  the 
case  file  was  found  to  be  legally  sufficient  and  the  discharge 
authority  ultimately  directed  she  be  discharged  with  a  service 
characterization  of  General,  without  an  opportunity  for 
probation and rehabilitation.   
 
On 25 Jan 11, the applicant submitted a Congressional Complaint 
to  her  Congresswoman  complaining  she  was  the  victim  of 
“inequality and retribution.”   
 
On  10  Feb  11,  the  applicant  contacted  the  Air  Education  and 
Training  Command  Inspector  General  Complaints  Resolution 
Division (AETC/IGQ), alleging she was the victim of reprisal on 
the  part  of  her  squadron  commander  for  having  made  a  protected 
communications.   
 
On 22 Feb 11, the Air Force Recruiting Service Inspector General 
(AFRS/IG) notified the applicant she was protected under the DOD 
Whistle Blower Protection Act while her case was under review.   
 
On 4 Mar 11, the applicant was discharged for Misconduct (Minor 
Infractions),  furnished  a  General  (Under  Honorable  Conditions) 
discharge  certificate,  and  was  credited  with  11  years  and  1 
month  of  total  service,  which  included  five  years,  one  month, 
and  ten  days  of  active  service  and  5  years,  11  months,  and  20 
days of inactive service.  
 
In  accordance  with  AFI  36-3208,  Paragraph  6.2.2,  Airmen 
recommended  for  discharge  for  (involuntary  separation)  must  be 
offered  an  opportunity  for  a  hearing  by  an  administrative 
discharge board if: (6.2.2.2.) the Airman has six or more years 
of  total  active  and  inactive  military  service  at  the  time  the 
discharge  processing  starts.    This  includes  service  in  the 
delayed enlistment program (DEP).   
 
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described  in  the  letters  prepared  by  the  Air  Force  offices  of 
primary responsibility which are included at Exhibits C and D.    
 
________________________________________________________________ 

3 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSOS recommends approval indicating there was an error or 
injustice.    Based  on  the  documentation  on  file  in  the 
applicant’s  master  personnel  records,  the  decision  to  deny  the 
applicant an ADB hearing was not consistent with the procedural 
and  substantive  requirements  of  the  discharge  instruction.    In 
accordance  with  AFI  36-3208,  Paragraph  6.2.2.  the  applicant 
qualified  for  an  ADB  hearing  during  her  involuntary  discharge 
proceeding  because  she  had  over  6  years  of  combined  active  and 
inactive  service  at  the  time  of  her  separation.    Therefore,  we 
recommend  the  Board  grant  the  applicant’s  request  that  she  be 
offered an opportunity for a hearing by an ADB.   
 
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
AFRS/RSO/CCU  advises  that  the  applicant  is  not  qualified  to 
return  to  service  in  the  Recruiting  Special  Duty.    Her  Reentry 
Code  (RE  Code)  of  2B  is  disqualifying  IAW  AFI  36-2606,  Active 
Duty  Service  Determination  for  Civilian  or  Contractual  Groups.  
Further, even if her disciplinary actions were removed from her 
file  by  the  AFBMCR,  her  pay  grade  of  E-4  (Senior  Airman)  was 
restored, and her RE Code was upgraded to an acceptable RE Code, 
she would still be ineligible to apply to the AF Prior Service 
program  based  on  the  fact  that  she  would  not  have  4-years 
retainability prior to hitting her high year of tenure (HYT) as 
an  E-4.    Therefore,  she  is  not  qualified  due  to  the  HYT 
restriction.  
 
A complete copy of the AFRS/RSO/CCU evaluation is at Exhibit D.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The  applicant  reiterates  that  her  discharge  and  Article  15  were 
rendered  unfairly.    She  also  contends  that  said  actions  were 
rendered in reprisal for her protected communications.  She also 
contends that she was unfairly denied the opportunity to test for 
promotion  to  the  grade  of  staff  sergeant  in  early  2010,  despite 
being  eligible  to  do  so.    In  support  of  these  contentions,  she 
submits 90 pages of material consisting of correspondence related 
to  her  Congressional  Inquiry,  e-mails  associated  with  her  case, 
excerpts from the military personnel record, and several pictures 
(Exhibit F). 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
 
1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  all  remedies  provided  by 
existing law or regulations. 
 
2.  The application was timely filed. 

4 

 

 
3.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice regarding the 
applicant’s  contention  she  was  denied  her  right  to  meet  an 
Administrative  Discharge  Board  (ADB)  in  conjunction  with  her 
involuntary discharge.  After a thorough review of the evidence 
of  record  and  the  applicant’s  complete  submission,  to  include 
her  rebuttal  response,  we  agree  with  the  AFPC/DPSOS 
determination  that  the  applicant  was  entitled  to  appear  before 
an ADB prior to being discharged as she had attained more than 
six years of combined active and inactive service at the time of 
her  separation.    Moreover,  the  applicant  also  alleges  that  her 
discharge was the culmination of a systematic pattern of events 
that  constitute  reprisal  in  violation  of  the  Whistleblower 
Protection  Act  (10  USC  1034).    However,  while  the  evidence  of 
record indicates the applicant timely filed a complaint with the 
Inspector  General,  it  appears  as  though  an  investigation  into 
her  allegations  was  never  completed  in  accordance  with  the 
provisions  of  10  USC  1034.    Therefore,  while  we  find  the 
evidence is sufficient for us to conclude that she was deprived 
of certain due process rights related to her discharge, in order 
for  the  Board  to  render  full  and  fair  consideration  of  this 
case, we believe the applicant’s case should be referred to the 
Inspector  General  for  an  investigation  under  the  authority 
granted  to  this  Board  on  this  issue.    Accordingly,  it  is  our 
determination  that  a  final  decision  not  be  rendered  on  the 
applicant’s  requests  until  such  time  as  the  Inspector  General 
conducts  an  investigation  at  our  request  and  the  report  of 
investigation  (ROI)  is  provided  to  us  for  review.    The  Board 
notes  the  applicant  did  not  contend  she  was  the  victim  of 
reprisal  in  her  original  AFBCMR  application,  but  notified  the 
AFCMR  of  her  claim  of  reprisal  under  Whistleblower  Protection 
Act (10 USC 1034) in her subsequent rebuttal after receiving the 
Air Force evaluations in Aug 12.  Thus, the Board adhered to the 
statutory  requirement  for  responding  to  an  allegation  of 
reprisal  by  responding  with  180-days  of  receipt  of  the 
applicant’s  rebuttal.  Upon  receipt  of  the  ROI,  or  if  for  some 
reason  the  IG  should  determine  an  investigation  cannot  be 
conducted,  we  will  reopen  the  applicant’s  case  and  resume 
consideration  of  her  requests.    Therefore,  it  is  our 
determination  that  the  applicant’s  case  be  administratively 
closed,  without  prejudice,  until  appropriate  action  by  the  IG 
has  concluded  and  this  Board  and  the  applicant,  has  been  so 
advised.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 
 
The  applicant  be  notified  that  her  case  was  administratively 
closed, without prejudice.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 

5 

 

  Panel Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-01472 in Executive Session on 9 Jan 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
  
   
 
     
 
 
The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-01472 was considered: 
 
     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Mar 12, w/atchs. 
     Exhibit B.  Master Military Personnel Records.  
 Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 14 May 12. 
 
 Exhibit D.  Letter, AFRS/RSO/CCU, dated 2 Aug 12. 
 
 
 Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Aug 12. 
 
Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, undated.  
 
 
 
 
  
                                   Panel Chair 
 

6